Field of the Invention
Embodiments of the invention relate to enforcing compliance with publishing rules. More specifically, embodiments of the invention relate to a system and method for processing publishing rules by routing documents based on document conceptual understanding and to a content creation system configured to provide prompt feedback on document content coverage.
Description of the Related Art
Frequently, an organization may wish to desire how, when, and/or what is published by representatives of the organization. For example, from a marketing perspective, an organization may prefer publications to stay “on message” with a consistent look, feel, and content. However, the issue can go much further. In some cases, an organization may be required to limit what is published through contract, regulation, or policy. For example, when an organization becomes involved with a collaboration partner, a collaboration agreement may specify control over what one party to the collaboration publishes about the other. A common arrangement is to require one party to provide the collaboration partner with an advance review copy prior to publication. Doing so allows the collaboration partner to vet the contents of a document prior to its publication.
Of course, prior to entering an agreement with the collaboration partner, the organization needs to provide assurances that mistakes will not be made in the first place (people tend to like to do business with those that can demonstrate a series of checks and balances exist to ensure that they can keep their word). At the same time, in a large organization, maintaining control over everything that may become public can be quite difficult. Thus, problems can arise in large organizations with an agreement that requires third party approval of publications. In such an organization, many people may be working on very different projects that are sometimes only loosely related and individuals may have only passing knowledge of each others work. Frequently, a full inter-departmental review of all published documents is not really an option. Unfortunately it is common to know a lot about the successes of collaboration partners while knowing very little about the contractual requirements in place with those collaboration partners. Obviously, when talking with potential partners, everyone wishes to demonstrate as much synergy with current partners as possible. As a result, it is nearly impossible to keep tabs everywhere on what can be said about specific projects within various departments. The cost of not saying anything is lost additional partners and customers to your competitors—the cost of saying too much is potential loss of key partners and even legal action for breaching contracts.
Further, the Internet, and the rising popularity of “blogs” in particular, has led to a dramatic increase in the number of sources for individuals to publish information about the organization. On one hand, allowing individual employees to publish information about what they do, in their own words may be very beneficial to the organization. Accordingly, an organization may wish to sponsor (or simply condone) individual blogs where employees relate information about what they do within the company on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, even well-intentioned individuals may sometimes disclose information that the organization, by way of contract, regulation, or policy, wish to maintain as confidential. Similarly, as described above, some disclosures may require approval by the organization and/or third parties (e.g., in the case of a collaboration partner) prior to publication.